Purpose of Concessions

Islam is a political force, pressing all over the free world for more and more concessions and accommodations from non-Muslims. Each concession takes away freedoms for non-Muslims or gives power, privilege, or advantage to Muslims. In this way, practicing Muslims are invading from within.

It's a new kind of invasion, and to whatever degree they win, it is only because democracies are voluntarily (foolishly, ignorantly) conceding.

Our concessions allow them to keep chipping away at democracy. Their goal is to make every government follow Shari'a law, a repressive system of government. They are accomplishing it incrementally, one small concession at a time.

How to Talk to Non-Muslims About the Disturbing Nature of Islam

Get New Posts Via Email

Please Send Us Stories

When you come across stories about concessions to Islam, please send them to:citizenwarriorgeneral@gmail.comSend the link and a 50-200 word summary of the article. We will post them immediately.

We have created this site so all of us would have a single short link we could use whenever we mention concessions to Islam:http://concess.blogspot.com

Take the Pledge

Some people say Islam is a religion of peace and that Islam has been hijacked by extremists, terrorists, and stealth jihadists who twist and distort the peaceful teachings of the Quran and quote it out of context.

Others say that political, supremacist, and even violent teachings are fundamental to Islam, and that people who say otherwise either haven’t read the Quran or are protecting Islam with religious deception (taqiyya).

The general confusion about the nature of Islam makes us collectively unable to make informed decisions. You can help end this confusion by reading the Quran. Stop believing what other people say and find out for yourself.

Concessions are Sharia

Let's look at an example. Around the world, Muslims react strongly when anyone criticizes Islam. Why? In Sharia law, it is forbidden to criticize either Islam or Mohammad. This is a precept of Sharia law.

Forbidding the criticism of any religion is certainly not a precept of a free society or of Western civilization. This means: To whatever degree Islamic supremacists succeed in silencing our criticisms of Islam, to that degree they have imposed Sharia law on non-Muslims.

Do you know what this means? When the U.S. government stops using words that even implythat Islam might have something to do with terrorism (out of their fear of offending Muslims), what has happened?Islamic supremacists have successfully imposed Sharia law on the U.S. government! This has already happened. Read about it here and here and here.

The primary directive of Islam is not to convert everybody, but to bring everybody on Earth under the rule of Sharia law, whether they like it or not. Ridiculous, right? How could it possibly happen? And yet, it is already happening right under our noses. The concessions on this site are a record of their success thus far.

Get Used To It, Kafirs

Meanwhile, standing by will be legions of Americans saying "What's the big deal? So they want to have a break a little early so they can pray! Let them have it! It doesn't mean America is becoming an Islamic state!" And of course it doesn't. But it does mean that step by step, day by day, little by little, Americans are being asked to make special accommodations for Islam and Muslims, to accept the idea that Muslims are not to conform to American practices, but American practices must give way for them. Little by little, in such small steps that no one notices or cares, a protected class is being formed, and Sharia established as non-negotiable. Where non-Muslims are inconvenienced, as are the non-Muslim Swift employees at Swift, by these concessions to Islamic practice, so be it. Tough. Live with it. Let it be. Muslims are above non-Muslims.

Stealth Jihad

Robert Spencer wrote:

These Muslim initiatives are part of a larger stealth jihad aimed at, in the words of the Muslim Brotherhood, "eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated and Allah’s religion is made victorious over all other religions.”

Fecundity as a Weapon

"The Moslem population of the world has been exploding, not only in Asia and Africa but also in Europe and the United States. Unlike the Western democracies, China, Japan and India, all of which try to control the birth rate in order to raise living standards, most Muslim countries regard demography as a political weapon. They will gladly export their surplus population to Europe and America, aware that the bigger the diaspora, the greater the political influence it will exert, and the more concessions the Islamic world will be able to extort from the West."
- Serge Trifkovic

Dhimwit of the Month

The Religion of Peace website has a page called the Dhimwit of the month (a dhimmi in Islam is someone of another religion who is tolerated by Islamic law and not executed as long as they remain subjugated and pay a dhimmi tax). Check it out:

Many Forms of Jihad

The bag of non-violent tactics used by the jihadists is deep indeed. Over the last few decades they have perfected a series of effective Jihads against the non-Muslim world while it slumbered in its politically-correct dream-world. There are many Jihads the Islamists use and they all support their ultimate goal — an Islamic world ruled by Shari'a Law. Here they are:

From R. James Woolsey

"Robert Spencer makes a solid case that the major threat to our way of life does not come solely from those radical Islamists who embrace violence and terrorism. It also comes from those who do not accept that they must live side-by-side on a basis of equality with those of other faiths in a civil society and who instead work in multiple ways toward obtaining special standing for Islam in our society and, ultimately, toward theocracy. A vital wake-up call of a book."

The following is Melanie Phillips speaking at a recent conference in Florida. She is a British writer who shares some of the unbelievable accommodations and misguided strategies the British government is pursuing. It's worth a listen.

The Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) claims it represents "Moderate" Muslim Americans. But in an article by Daniel Pipes and Sharon Chadha in the Middle East Quarterly, they write, "Perhaps the most obvious problem with CAIR is the fact that at least five of its employees and board members have been arrested, convicted, deported, or otherwise linked to terrorism-related charges and activities."

The authors list the five and describe their crimes. Even though this is public knowledge, the whole mainstream establishment relies on CAIR. For example:

When President George W. Bush visited the Islamic Center of Washington several days after September 11, 2001, to signal that he would not tolerate a backlash against Muslims, he invited CAIR's executive director, Nihad Awad, to join him at the podium. Two months later, when Secretary of State Colin Powell hosted a Ramadan dinner, he, too, called upon CAIR as representative of Islam in America. More broadly, when the State Department seeks out Muslims to welcome foreign dignitaries, journalists, and academics, it calls upon CAIR. The organization has represented American Muslims before Congress. The National Aeronautics and Space Agency hosted CAIR's "Sensitivity and Diversity Workshop" in an effort to harmonize space research with Muslim sensibilities.

Law-enforcement agencies in Florida, Maryland, Ohio, Michigan, New York, Arizona, California, Missouri, Texas, and Kentucky have attended CAIR's sensitivity-training sessions. The organization boasts such tight relations with law enforcement that it claims to have even been invited to monitor police raids. In July 2004, as agents from the FBI, Internal Revenue Service, and Homeland Security descended on the Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences in America, a Saudi-created school in Merrifield, Virginia, a local paper reported that the FBI had informed CAIR's legal director, Arsalan Iftikhar, that morning that the raid was going to take place.

CAIR is also a media darling. It claims to log five thousand annual mentions on newspapers, television, and radio, including some of the most prestigious media in the United States. The press dutifully quotes CAIR's statistics, publishes its theological views, reports its opinions, rehashes its press releases, invites its staff on television, and generally dignifies its existence as a routine part of the American and Canadian political scenes.

CAIR regularly participates in seminars on Islamic cultural issues for corporations and has been invited to speak at many of America's leading universities, including Harvard, Stanford, Johns Hopkins, and Columbia. American high schools have invited CAIR to promote its agenda, as have educationally-minded senior citizens.

CAIR has successfully duped mainstream politicians and media, but their roots are deep in Islamic supremacism. The fact that anybody listens to CAIR is a concession beyond belief, given that anyone who can read can easily discover what they are really up to (read more about it here).

In 2005, the OIC (Organization of Islamic Conference) urged the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to pass a resolution called “combating defamation of religions.” Although the title of the resolution referred to religions generally, the text cited concerns only Islam specifically. Not surprisingly, the countries that voted in favor of the resolution included many Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Malaysia, Qatar, Kuwait, and Sudan, among others. Freer nations such as the United States, Australia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, and Japan, all voted in opposition to the resolution.

At the OIC’s 2006 summit in Mecca, it adopted a zero tolerance policy regarding insults to Islam, going so far as to include “hostile glances” in its definition of Islamophic behavior. The immediate goal of the summit was to obtain “protection” for Islam in European parliaments and the UN including the Human Rights Council (which replaced the Human Rights Commission). It also proposed the creation of an “Islamic Council of Human Rights” and a “Charter of Human Rights in Islam.” Both would be based on Sharia law and run contrary to the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You might be asking yourself, "Who cares what they want?" This might give you an idea of just how dangerous conceding to the OIC really is:

The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is an Islamist supremacist organization. Composed of 57 member states with Muslim majority populations, the OIC is the largest Islamic body in the world. It is also the largest international organization of any kind, second only to the United Nations. It represents an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims across the Middle East, Asia and Africa.

And to further demonstrate the power of the OIC, what happened this year will set your teeth on edge:

In March 2008, the OIC held a two-day summit in Senegal, where it produced a battle plan to combat Islamophobia. It would defend itself against all forms of free expression that could be interpreted as criticism of Islam, including that of cartoonists, film producers, reporters, politicians or governments.

Countries that already regularly deny religious freedom and freedom of speech to their own citizens, demanded legal measures to have their oppressive rules imposed internationally. “I don’t think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy” explained Abdoulaye Wade, Chairman of the OIC. “There can be no freedom without limits.”

As a result of this summit, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed the resolution!

It’s ironic that countries which follow an interpretation of Islam that disallows religious freedom or freedom of speech at home, are utilizing these very freedoms abroad to achieve their Islamist goals. By turning the definition of freedom on its head, free speech and religious freedom for non-Muslims can now be condemned as anti-Islamic.

Islam has gained a major concession. This is an important first step in the ultimate political goal of worldwide Shari'a law. The attainment of this political goal is a religious duty for all Muslims. One way to wage jihad is with violence. Another way is to wage jihad by gaining concessions, and the first, most important concession to gain is silencing criticism of Islam itself. The passing of the United Nations Human Rights Council's resolution was a step in that direction.

Because Islam forbids the artistic representation of people, and because the cartoon implied that Muslims might be violent, Muslims across Europe rioted violently to protest. When it was all over, 187 people were dead. Over cartoons.

But that's not all that happened. As Bawer writes:

Not a single newspaper in Britain reprinted the cartoons. And both the Swedish and Norwegian governments provided textbook cases of cowering dhimmitude. But none of that was really a surprise. What did surprise, and disappoint, me was the American political and media establishment. Both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush condemned the Jyllands-Posten cartoons out of hand. The State Department denounced them too, and only reversed itself after getting an earful from the Danish government, one of its few allies in Iraq. In the entire United States of America, exactly one major newspaper, the Philadelphia Inquirer, reprinted the cartoons. And while the major broadcast networks, as well as CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC, reported extensively on the cartoon riots, none of them ever showed the cartoons at all.

That is outrageous. And pathetic! With that kind of cowering political correctness at work, who needs enemies? This is still America, isn't it? Land of the free? Home of the brave?

In Britain, the Equality Commission says it would be a violation of the Race Relations Act to treat foreigners less favorably than British citizens by limiting how many foreigners can be in the British armed forces.

The British Army wanted no more than 15 percent of their national army made up of non-British soldiers, which in my mind is already way too high.

But multiculturalism may force them to fill their ranks with people who may not feel loyal to Britain. That is multiculturalism-induced insanity. If Jihadis are behind this (staffing the Equality Commission or pressuring them), I wouldn't be surprised. But it is often hard to tell the difference between what hardcore Jihadis are trying to accomplish and what multiculturalists are trying to accomplish. The multiculturalists are so committed to "Why can't we all just get along?" they are perfectly willing to sell our freedom and security to make it happen.

Distinguished universities such as Harvard and Michigan have set aside separate hours for Muslim gym use and installed ritual foot baths respectively.

Columbia University dignified Ahmadinejad by inviting him to address its polity as if his state sponsored terrorism and declared intention to destroy a fellow member of the UN were just innocuous opinions to be honored by our First Amendment.

New York has established the Kahlil Gibran School for Arabic language and culture; it remains unclear how separate this can be from religion in content or pedagogic personnel.

Prisons have been sued to provide services for individual sects of Islam as well as communal rooms for worship. All this while the Arab American community and its religious leadership have remained largely silent in the face of radical jihadist terrorism and threats, domestically and around the world.

Contrast this with the fervent, outspoken protests, boycotts, editorials and media assaults against our own country or its ally, Israel. And compare this with the scrutiny of organizations such as the ACLU in their determination to rid the public sector of any trace of God or organized western religions. Christianity and Judaism are routinely challenged for intruding their religious symbols into school or community space, and as we watch the Ten Commandments jettisoned from courthouse lobbies, we see the increased presence of Islamic symbolism gain its foothold. In New York, the veiled woman has now become a familiar sight in employment and on the urban canvas. Prior to 9/11, the only veiled women one might have seen were in Brooklyn or New Jersey, areas with large Muslim populations. Today, the ticket seller at a popular art theater in Manhattan wears a headscarf, as does the receptionist at my local gym — both unexpected venues for religious Muslims.

Feminist and gay lobbies have tackled the orthodoxy of western religions but refrained from attacking the homophobic and sexist foundations of Islam, keeping a safe distance from the repercussions of jihadists.

Civil Rights groups demand reparations for slavery in America while doing nothing to protest the current ongoing Muslim enslavement of blacks in Africa.

Apparently YouTube, who has had some challenges with Turkey and Pakistan, have decided that it is easier to block "problematic" content themselves than standing up for freedom and have Pakistani Internet operators wreck havoc on them.

The Canadian writer, Mischa Popoff, wrote an article about a new television program in Canada called Little Mosque on the Prairie, which mentioned (among other things) a few of the concessions Muslims have pressured out of Canadian kafirs recently. He wrote:

"A recent Canadian Press story exposed the 'plight' of a modern Muslim woman who couldn’t find a suitable hair salon in Toronto that would prevent men from casting their eyes upon her exposed face. And public pools across this country now provide private swim times to Muslim women so they can avoid the 'shame' of being seen by men."

As the influential Greek poet, Hesiod, said, "If you add a little to a little and do this often, soon the little will become great."

As I've said earlier, several Islamic countries have banned together to try to get "defamation of religion" banned throughout the world, obviously aimed at preventing criticism of Islam. As one of the speakers tries to make the point that the countries who are presenting the proposal are some of the worst defamers of religion (defaming Christianity and Judaism), and that their proposal is clearly biased in favor of Islam, that the proposal should be rejected.

The representative from Egypt interrupts and says, basically, it's part of Islamic doctrine to defame other religions, and since this discussion is not about theology, then whether or not Islamic countries defame other religions is not a legitimate subject for conversation at this meeting.

From BritainNews.net: "Shari'a courts, which have been operational in England for more than a year now, will soon be set up in Scottish cities, like Edinburgh and Glasgow. Secret talks are said to be underway to bring these courts to the neighbouring country.

"The move is being opposed by several quarters of the Scottish society. Attempts to set up Shari'a courts in Canada in 2005 were abandoned after protests.

"Qamar Bhatti, director of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT), which runs the courts, admitted secret discussions were taking place with lawyers and Muslim community groups in Scotland."

This is from a speech by Geert Wilders, chairman of the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands:

In some elementary schools in Amsterdam the farm can no longer be mentioned, because that would also mean mentioning the pig, and that would be an insult to Muslims. Many state schools in Belgium and Denmark only serve halal food to all pupils. In once-tolerant Amsterdam gays are beaten up almost exclusively by Muslims. Non-Muslim women routinely hear “whore, whore”. Satellite dishes are not pointed to local TV stations, but to stations in the country of origin.

In France school teachers are advised to avoid authors deemed offensive to Muslims, including Voltaire and Diderot; the same is increasingly true of Darwin. The history of the Holocaust can in many cases no longer be taught because of Muslim sensitivity. In England, Shari'a courts are now officially part of the British legal system. Many neighborhoods in France are no-go areas for women without head scarves. Last week a man almost died after being beaten up by Muslims in Brussels, because he was drinking during the Ramadan. Jews are fleeing France in record numbers, on the run for the worst wave of anti-Semitism since World War II (Muslims follow their Prophet in an extreme hatred of Jews, see comments to this article).

Samir Khan from Charlotte, North Carolina, runs a website, inshallahshahid (also known as "Revolution"), which features videos of terrorists bombing US military vehicles, provides links to the writings of Al-Qaeda chiefs Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, and praises “martyrdom bombers” who sacrifice their lives “for the sake of Islam”. Last October, the New York Timesreported on Khan’s online efforts, observing that he is just one of many new faces of what Al-Qaeda calls the “Islamic Jihadi media”.

And yet, Khan continues running his website in the U.S.

The same is true for the popular Islamic website, Islamicity.com, which operates an entire video channel dedicated to Yemeni Al-Qaeda cleric and bin Laden mentor, Abd al-Majid Al-Zindani (the "Yemeni Shiekh of Hate"), who was listed by the US government as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist back in February 2004. Yet Islamicity is still active and online. Although the website is run by Human Assistance and Development International (HUDI), a tax-exempt not-for-profit organization based in Culver City, California, Islamicity has revenues of $10-50 million each year and is among the top 25,000 websites in the world. And it is backed by some heavy-hitters in the North American Islamic community, most notably Jamal Badawi and Abdullah Idris Ali, both on the board of directors of the Islamic Society of North America, which claims to be largest Islamic organization in North America.

Six months ago, the growing surrender in the war of ideas by America's counterterrorism community was seen by the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) memorandum endorsing the DHS "terror lexicon" prohibiting the use of the terms such as "Jihad," "Islamist," and "mujahedeen." This milestone was part of a trend that has been growing for nearly two years. These are key terms in counterterrorism. The terrorists' Islamic doctrines are vital to knowing who the enemy is, what they're up to, and how to stop them.

In addition, an increasing number of counterterrorist organizations have been promoting analysts who support negotiations, rather than confrontation, with Islamic supremacists, and some voices are being marginalized or silenced. This growing surrender will require American citizens to increase their activism in demanding that their government representatives confront Jihad and Islamic supremacism. Find out what you can do to help.

The Islamic Society of Boston (ISB) has revealed that they intend to broadcast an amplified call to prayer throughout the neighborhood now that the Boston mosque is complete...but that's contrary to what two previous spokespeople assured the public when the mosque was still under construction.

The taxpayers of Boston subsidized the building of this mosque by "donating" a $2 million parcel of land to the ISB for less than $200,000 — a deal arranged when a member of the Boston Redevelopment Board also just happened to be a fundraiser for the ISB.

The ISB is notorious for its support of terror advocates like Mullah Al-Qawadari, who was the first prominent mullah to urge women to become suicide bombers, too. The ISB has actually distributed Al-Qawadari's teachings. And now, thanks to Mayor Menino, they've got a publicly-funded mosque to continue their work.

Iran's president is again coming to America to address the United Nations General Assembly, a body that will give him an enthusiastic ovation. Ahmadinejad has repeatedly denied the Holocaust. He has called for Israel to be "wiped off the map." His regime is the world's leading sponsor of Islamic terrorism, backing Hezbollah in its war against Israel and radical Shiite groups that are murdering civilians and American soldiers in Iraq. He is also aggressively pursuing nuclear technology in defiance of U.N. inspectors.

Unbelievably, some groups, such as the Quakers and the World Council of Churches, have invited Ahmadinejad to a dinner to break the Ramadan fast. They have promoted this dinner as an opportunity to discuss "the role of religions in tackling global challenges and building peaceful societies." This is a man who regularly tells his followers to imagine a world where Israel and the United States no longer exist, and that such a day is coming soon. What are these Christians, who want to talk about peace, thinking?

German police hardly dare to enter certain districts anymore, because they are attacked immediately. There is no warning sign on the usual road maps of Essen. Yet there are other laws on this side of the line. At the Viehofer Strasse the “dangerous area” starts. This is what the local police call the northern part of the inner city of Essen, one of several areas avoided by German police.

Are they cracking down? Not a chance. The politicians are all towing the PC line, and so are the newspapers. Nobody wants to say it: They have conceded part of their own territory to an enemy who despises them and wants to usurp their government.

"In a landmark settlement that could change the way Muslims are treated in the workplace, St. Cloud-based Gold'n Plump Inc. has agreed to allow Somali workers short prayer breaks and the right to refuse handling pork at its poultry processing facilities," writes Chris Serres for the Minneapolis-St. Paul Star Tribune.

This seems like "reasonable and practical accommodation," says Robert Spencer, but "...when Islamic practices and American practices conflict, the American practices have to be the ones that give way. As this continues, it will cause increasing tension in the workplace and in society at large."

Germany is preparing to introduce Islam classes for Muslim children in public schools. Some Muslims complained about the man that was running the teacher-training program for Germany, so they ousted him, even though they have a policy not to fire someone because of public complaints. They found a way around their own rule so they could bow to Islamic pressure.

Personnel Today, a publication for managers of businesses, encourages managers and CEOs to accommodate Islamic practices so their Muslim employees are happy, including going out of their way to create bonus plans that do not earn or charge interest. Special concessions should be made to Muslims, it says. Why? Why are concessions being constantly made? Because they demand them. And they will keep pushing for concessions until the whole world is Islamic. Does that sound ridiculous? Think again.

The film below documents the true story of how an American-Israeli author Dr. Rachel Ehrenfeld was ordered to destroy all copies of her book in a country where it had never been published — England — after a notoriously litigious Saudi billionaire sued her in a British court. Ehrenfeld's book Funding Evil, Updated: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It, accuses the Saudi billionaire of funding of terrorism. The film is 8 minutes long.

In many ways, Islam is creeping its way into British society, as the film below demonstrates (length: 6:49). But at least one study shows that most British Muslims don't want Shari'a law. A lot of British Muslims moved to Britain to escape it. Yet it might be foisted on them anyway by political leaders.

It's clear that multiculturalism and political correctness have backfired badly. The hardcore Jihadis have not been assimilated, but the nation's confidence in democracy and their own cultural values has been sapped, and its will to resist the cultural aggressiveness of Islam has been weakened.

As an important monograph on Sharia-Compliant Finance (SCF) recently issued by the McCormick Foundation (for copies contact the Center at www.SecureFreedom.org) makes clear, the investors running the SCF are, unsurprisingly, adherents to Shari'a. A number of them explicitly embrace its call to jihad (including a former senior member of the Dow Jones Islamic Index, Sheik Taqi Usmani). This "holy war" is to be waged where possible through violent means, where necessary through "soft" means like Shariah-Compliant Finance. For this reason, such Jihadis call SCF "financial jihad."

Earlier this year, David Yerushalmi, a litigator specializing in securities law and an expert on Shari'a, produced a legal memorandum (soon to appear in the University of Utah Law Review) examining the civil and criminal exposure inherent in Shari'a-Compliant Finance. His conclusion: banks and investment houses offering SCF products may be enabling or engaging in the following: racketeering, antitrust activity, securities fraud, consumer fraud and/or material support for terror.

Sherry Jones, a journalist, wrote an historical novel about Aisha, the child bride of the Prophet Mohammed (Aisha was six years old at the time of the marriage). In 2007, publishing heavyweight Random House bought the rights to the novel, titled The Jewel of Medina, offering the author $100,000. Jones spent five years researching Aisha’s life, studying Arabic, and working through seven drafts before finally finishing the novel. Random House was preparing to market the book as a “Book of the Month” selection when the book was published August 12, 2008.

But it wasn’t. Shortly before its scheduled publication, Random House decided not to publish the novel after all. Random House feared a violent reaction from Jihadis. A statement from the publisher, making no attempt to disguise the preemptive surrender to intimidation, explained that after sending out advance copies of the novel “we received in response, from credible and unrelated sources… that the publication of this book might be offensive to some in the Muslim community, but also that it could incite acts of violence by a small, radical segment.” Unwilling to stand up to Islamic radicals, Random House handed Jones her walking papers.

Thousands of Muslims, armed with clubs and sticks and shouting, “Allahu akbar!” riot and force the police to retreat. Windows are smashed; stores are looted; cars are torched. Europeans unlucky or careless enough to be trapped by the mob are viciously attacked, and some are killed.

The trouble in France finally ended, as various Muslim “community leaders” had claimed it would, only when various levels of French officialdom quietly accepted that there were de facto no-go areas within the country, mini-Islamistans run by the dominant local Muslim majority.

“Do not permit your children to follow the example of the French. They should comport themselves in a totally different manner than the French. Here in France we have to impose ourselves, and impose Islam.”

Accordingly, in France and all over Western Europe, demands are presented for businesses employing Muslims to observe the Islamic calendar, or for state schools to be segregated by sex and include the tenets of Islam in the curriculum. Everywhere they demand that their daughters be allowed to wear the traditional headscarf, or hijab, claiming that it is more a cultural than a religious symbol. In France, they have already prevailed.

Publisher Roger Kimball has noted that when he was about to publish "Andy McCarthy's Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad," he received a message from a distributor working in the U.K. and Canada asking if there were "any references to Saudis and terrorist(s) in the book" as that "could potentially create libel lawsuits as it could offend Saudis living in England and this has happened with many other U.S. publications and we do not want to be jeopardized in selling this book."

A year-and-a-half after the critically acclaimed film Undercover Mosque was first screened, Dispatches goes undercover again to see whether extremist beliefs continue to be promoted in certain key British Muslim institutions.

Their findings: Nothing has changed. The mosque still promotes violent jihad against non-Muslims, it encourages murder and intolerance, and it promotes Shari'a, which means it advocates the overthrow of the British government (sedition).

The United Nations General Assembly is considering a resolution sponsored by the 57-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC). The ostensible purpose of “Combating Defamation of Religion” is to stamp out “incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular."

Felice Gaer, chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, a bipartisan federal body, says it’s clear that the OIC countries are attempting to “mainstream” prohibitions on any speech that could be considered critical of Islam.

The Muslim Arbitration Tribunal has used Shari'a law to settle more than 100 civil disputes between Muslims across the UK since it opened last December.

The tribunal, which runs along side the British legal system, was set up by scholars and lawyers at Hijaz College Islamic University in Watling Street, Nuneaton.

Mind you, the purpose of jihad is to establish Shari'a law throughout the world, a repressive, sixth-century system of justice. Jihadis push and push, through violence or through more stealthy ways, and they keep pushing as long as it takes, until they find a crack, and they push in the wedge. That's jihad.

Britain conceded this time. Let's hope she reverses her decision and sins no more.

Polygamous marriages are illegal in Italy yet are reportedly on the rise. While few Muslim immigrants or Italian converts to Islam admit such unions, Muslim scholars put the number nationwide at 15,000-20,000.

The Italian state does not issue family welfare checks to more than one wife per husband, unlike in Britain, where the government has since February been issuing family welfare checks to all of a polygamist's wives resident in the country.

Belgium and Germany also offer benefits to polygamists' various wives.

Britain has caved in to the key Jihadi demand that no one should suggest that Islamic terrorism has anything to do with Islam. In a speech on counter-terrorism last month, Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, even declared violent extremism to be “anti-Islamic.”

The Research, Information and Communication Unit has told civil servants not to use terms such as “Islamist extremism” or “jihadi-fundamentalist.” Instead, they should refer to “violent extremism” or “criminal murderers” or “thugs” to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism.

You can't defend yourself against an enemy you are unwilling to define (or even name).

Banks and other financial institutions are falling over themselves to develop Sharia finance, despite the fact that this provides a cover for terrorist financing and is a prime instrument for forcing the ever-wider spread of Islamic practices among Muslims.

At Melbourne’s Monash University there are separate toilets for Muslims and in England a British council abandoned their custom of serving water and biscuits at meetings held during the holy month of Ramadan, at the request of two Islamic councilors.

The concessions are not large, but they are relentless. One of the reasons we give these concessions is because they are so small.

A Dutch movie shows the connection between verses in the Qur'an and modern day acts of terrorism. It has been banned, vilified, and censored — not just in Islamic countries, which would be understandable, but in free democracies (that's the concession).

Publishing heavyweight Random House pulled a romance novel about Muhammad from its fall line-up out of fear of Islamic violence in New York City.

Mazen Asbahi, Obama's director of Muslim outreach, resigned over ties to the Muslim Brotherhood. (According to Investor's Business Daily, Asbahi continues to work in some capacity for the campaign.)

Last spring, the U.S. government issued guidelines for the Department of Homeland Security and others that "suggest" such terms as "jihad" and "Islamic terrorism" not be used.

Earlier this year, revelations that the No. 2 man at the Pentagon, Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, was closely assisted by Hesham Islam, "an Islamist with a pro-Muslim Brotherhood bent who has brought in groups to the Pentagon who have been unindicted co-conspirators," according to terror expert Steven Emerson.

The Times of London reported that "Knorbert the piglet has been dropped as the mascot of Fortis Bank, after it decided to stop giving piggy banks to children for fear of offending Muslims." (Pigs are an offensive, unclean animal to Muslims.)

I started keeping a file on pig controversies a couple of years ago, and you would be surprised at how routine they have become. Recently, for instance, a local government council prohibited its workers from having knickknacks on their desks representing Winnie the Pooh’s sidekick Piglet.

A mosque is a Muslim outpost. They think of it that way. From a mosque in the center of kafir territory, they can teach jihad and organize the subversion of the host country, and they do. Germany has just approved plans to build the biggest mosque in Germany in the city of Cologne.

Known terrorists are walking the streets freely in Britain because it is policy not to deport someone to a country that might torture or execute them, even if they are wanted in that country for the crime of murder. So the government endangers its own people to protect the terrorists.

At least one of these terrorists was even being supported by the British government, he and his wife and five kids. Meanwhile, he spent his time preaching jihad against the West in British mosques! He enthusiastically encouraged his listeners to kill non-Muslims.

A TV station in the Czeck Republic was fined by the Council For Radio and Television for saying that Shari'a law allows a husband to kill an unfaithful wife. But the reporter who said this was right. Shari'a law does allow a husband to kill an unfaithful wife. The Council For Radio and Television conceded to demands by a Muslim organization who apparently do not like anything negative said about their religion, even if it's simply a fact.

This is like a Buddhist organization complaining because a reporter mentioned that Buddhists practice meditation. Buddhists do, in fact, practice meditation.

The Swift company moved its scheduled break times to concede to Muslim workers' demands, who were fasting for the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The company allowed Muslim workers to take their breaks about an hour earlier than normal to break their fasts.

Non-Muslim employees complained they were having to work more consecutive hours because of this accommodation to Muslims.

Further, when the Muslims gathered to demand the change in the break time, they were accommodated even though they got violent. When the non-Muslims peacefully gathered to complain about it, they were threatened with losing their jobs.

Get New Posts Via Email

You Can Help Us Here

I urge all of us to use this link whenever we mention concessions to Islam: http://concess.blogspot.com

Setting Precedents

As Robert Spencer put it: "...it's a small accommodation in itself, but it reinforces the precedent that American practices must give way to Muslim ones whenever they clash. Once that precedent is set, it does indeed lead to the Islamization of American society, unless at a certain point non-Muslims are willing to draw the line and say 'Thus far, but no farther. No more accommodation of Muslim demands.' That line will never be drawn, however, as long as Americans continue to fail to see the larger implications and inevitable outcome of these individual incidents."